FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2616130283> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2616130283 endingPage "1" @default.
• W2616130283 startingPage "1" @default.
• W2616130283 abstract "On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Elonis v. United States on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. In doing so, it turned away an important opportunity to provide needed clarification of true threats, a category of expression relegated to a lower level of protection by the Court almost a half-century ago. The categorical approach to free speech made its first explicit appearance in Supreme Court case law in 1942. Since that time, the Court has relied heavily on this method of constitutional interpretation, carving out discrete exceptions from the seemingly absolutist mandate of the First Amendment that Congress make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Although the categorical approach – frequently front and center in First Amendment adjudication – has been with us for almost seventy-five years, it rests on a surprisingly unsettled theoretical foundation. It is an indispensable doctrinal tool with a puzzling and sometimes contradictory array of justifications and operating instructions. In this piece, I attempt to clear up the confusion. I examine the evolution of this approach to the First Amendment. I critically assess the famous dictum from Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire that is responsible for establishing this system of classification. I scrutinize a number of possible interpretations of Chaplinsky and explore the disparate scholarly and judicial perspectives on this mode of constitutional interpretation. Finally, I move from the foundations and justifications of the categorical approach to the way this system works in practice. I argue that if the Court is to maintain its fidelity to an effectual categorical system of First Amendment adjudication – one that is properly respectful of the high stakes for free expression and democratic self-governance – it is vitally important that Court adequately define and operationalize respective categories. The final third of this article delves into one such category: true threats. I closely examine the Court’s true threats jurisprudence and look critically at the recent Elonis decision, contrasting the Court’s protracted failure to define and delimit true threats with the comparatively robust guidance it has offered with other discrete categories." @default.
• W2616130283 created "2017-05-26" @default.
• W2616130283 creator A5032439591 @default.
• W2616130283 date "2017-03-23" @default.
• W2616130283 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2616130283 title "On the Categorical Approach to Free Speech – And the Protracted Failure to Delimit the True Threats Exception to the First Amendment" @default.
• W2616130283 doi "https://doi.org/10.58948/2331-3528.1933" @default.
• W2616130283 hasPublicationYear "2017" @default.
• W2616130283 type Work @default.
• W2616130283 sameAs 2616130283 @default.
• W2616130283 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2616130283 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2616130283 hasAuthorship W2616130283A5032439591 @default.
• W2616130283 hasBestOaLocation W26161302831 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C2779204856 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C2780761950 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C138885662 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C144024400 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C17744445 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C199539241 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C204434341 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C2776154427 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C2778272461 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C2779204856 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C2780761950 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C41895202 @default.
• W2616130283 hasConceptScore W2616130283C527412718 @default.
• W2616130283 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W2616130283 hasLocation W26161302831 @default.
• W2616130283 hasOpenAccess W2616130283 @default.
• W2616130283 hasPrimaryLocation W26161302831 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W1549963865 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W2116076937 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W2130378978 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W2360072188 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W2767155884 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W2781796076 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W2884884929 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W3121776410 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W4251163416 @default.
• W2616130283 hasRelatedWork W864029991 @default.
• W2616130283 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W2616130283 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2616130283 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2616130283 magId "2616130283" @default.
• W2616130283 workType "article" @default.